Juan S. Dominguez v. State

Juan S. Dominguez v. The State of Texas IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-98-191-CR & No. 10-98-192-CR JUAN S. DOMINGUEZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 290th District Court Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 96-CR-1291 & 96-CR-5187 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Juan S. Dominguez pleaded guilty to two charges of felony DWI. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.09(b) (Vernon Supp. 1998). In exchange for his pleas, the State recommended that Dominguez receive three years’ imprisonment and a $1,000 fine in each case to run concurrently. The State took no position on Dominguez’s application for community supervision. The court rejected Dominguez’s request for community supervision and assessed his punishment at three years’ confinement and a $1,000 fine in each case pursuant to the State’s plea recommendation. Dominguez filed general notices of appeal in each case asserting that his pleas were involuntary because he expected to receive community supervision. To properly invoke the jurisdiction of this Court over an appeal from a negotiated guilty plea, an appellant must comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the appellate rules, even when challenging the voluntariness of his plea. Elizondo v. State, No. 10-98-178-CR, slip op. at 3-4, 1998 WL 784021, at *2 (Tex. App—Waco Nov. 12, 1998, no pet. h.); Villanueva v. State, No. 02-96-563-CR, slip op. at 5-6, 1998 WL 304336, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 11, 1998, no pet.); contra Rigsby v. State, 976 S.W.2d 368, 369 n. 1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1998, no pet. h.); Session v. State, No. 06-98-109-CR, 1998 WL 598405, at *2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Sept. 11, 1998, no pet.) (both holding compliance with Rule 25.2(b)(3) unnecessary when voluntariness of plea is challenged). Rule 25.2(b)(3) provides that in cases where a defendant has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment assessed does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, the defendant’s notice of appeal must: (a) specify that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect; (b) specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial; or (c) state that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). Dominguez’s general notices of appeal do not contain any of these three required recitations. Thus, they do not comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3). For this reason, we do not have jurisdiction over these appeals. Accordingly, we dismiss Dominguez’s appeals. PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Davis, Justice Cummings, and Justice Vance Appeals dismissed Opinion delivered and filed December 9, 1998 Do not publish